This actually is the best they can do.

There is some comfort there.

at least to put it on record.

She´ll find it more than half empty!

saying.

This is just another excuse to tell them to go scratch when the call me for an alumni donation.

At “drunkenly,”

Among others lines by Ann Althouse, “All right then! Release the Feinbergs!

Is this the oppo research of the future? What jackasses we are becoming!”

Link through Amy Alkon’s Advicegoddess.com, “which he paid for on his personal card,” to another link to Matthew Hurtt

http://matthewhurtt.com/paul-ryan-stimulates-economy-left-goes-wild/

“Feinberg (CV and website) asserts her economics background once again. And she was outraged. For what? Because Ryan was spending money… money he had earned? FOR SHAME!

What Feinberg and columnist Crabtree were really outraged about is Ryan’s political ideology. He’s conservative. That – in and of itself – is a crime.”

And much, much more.

I notice that in his source, Feinberg is quoted as saying “I was an economist….” Hmmm. I wonder why she’s forced to use the past tense? Perhaps because she understands nothing of economics? For just one point, doesn’t the Ryan group’s $700 purchase “stimulate the economy” a heck of a lot more than Feinberg’s half-bottle of muscatel? (Even more if she brought hers in in a brown paper bag.) And his 20% tip on his $400 share of the meal helped his server a bit more than her perhaps 10% tip on the wine and the surf-and-turf with the complementary birthday dessert. (Ms. Feinberg, if I’m wrong, prove it by giving us a photocopy of YOUR dinner receipt, and throw in your tax returns while you’re at it. We all know how tight liberals are with their own money.)

And kudos to Tommy Christopher at another Mediaite link, “as Mediate[sic] – MEDIATE[sic], forsooth! – noted, you’re able to afford dinner at that restaurant, too.”

The story is getting noticed, all right, but not the kind of notice Feinberg was hoping for. But she may have missed it all, anyway. Sometimes the mornings after can be rough.

Rutgers, are you paying attention to what your professors are doing in their spare time? Not that I’m in favor of censorship by employer, but Feinberg displayed so many contra-economic beliefs in her little escapade that you might wonder if she’s qualified to teach any business course, at any level.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263954/magic-moments-mutaween-mark-steyn

http://www.susanfeinberg.com/

is the greatest. I so appreciate him and how hard he works to help us understand what has to be done, whether we may like it all or not.

Having been a waiter and a bartender in three peoples’ republics in the 10 years I spent in the restaurant business. Liberals for the most part tip in the same way as they feel about taxes, they’re very loose w/other people’s money.

Playing to stereotype, Ms Feinberg seemed to be almost as offended that a $350 bottle was on the menu as she was at the fact that some rich people were drinking it (Do you suppose she’d be ok if poor people were drinking it?).

Given the fact that she also ordered a bottle in the same restaurant, she apparently beleives that *she* should be the arbiter of how much anyone should be allowed to pay for a bottle of wine, and by corollary, how much can be charged for a bottle of wine.

I beleive this sort of thinking is an inevitable evolution of the notion that the purpose of civilization is to make the world “fair”. Once you start down that line of thinking, you eventually get to the idea that unfairness is a form of opression caused by letting people make thier own decisions, and the only way we can truly be free is to allow the government to control every aspect of our lives.

A few other observations:
1) I find it interesting that an “economist” gives no thought to what would happen to all of the people on the value chain for this bottle of wine if her vision of a fair world were to come to pass.

2) I also find it interesting that she talks about a two earner family making minimum wage. I might be wrong here, but I don’t beleive minimum wage was intended to be at a level to support a family.

3) How about this for a thought-experiment; what would have happened if this had been a religious conservative who berated a US Representative for drinking (never mind the cost)?